They’re just not getting the implications here, are they?

A new study reveals an “alarming” 50 per cent rise in levels of prenatal depression in a single generation.

Researchers believe that while many women continue working throughout the bulk of their pregnancy due to career aspiration, others are forced to stay in their jobs longer than they would like because of financial demands such as increased house prices.

Both are contributing to a rise in anxiety among expectant mothers, with a “compare and compete” culture on platforms such as Facebook also fueling the trend.

One contributory factor to those house price rises is the availability of two incomes to pay for them of course.

We’ve thus got women working, women having careers, as a cause of this unhappiness and depression.

OK. The implication being? Well, either we withdraw the career bit or we put up with the depression, no?

24 comments on “They’re just not getting the implications here, are they?

  1. Ahem, no. The implication is higher taxes to featherbed those demanding careers. Because equality.

  2. “…either we withdraw the career bit or we put up with the depression, no?”

    Or women whinge until they get more maternity leave (on full pay, state-subsidized of course) and more state-supplied ‘support’ groups and child care.

  3. The interests of single women conflict wth the interests of married women. One or the other can have what they want but not both.

  4. Reincentivise living as an extended family. Most families for most of the time have required two physically fit adults working all the hours of the day to survive. The middle class housewife of the fifties and sixties is an historical blip. Granny and gramma are good for light duties such as childcare and maintenance and the grandchildren can reciprocate by keeping an eye on them later on as they slip into dotage.

  5. “The interests of single women conflict wth the interests of married women.”

    And, even more, the interests of pretend women conflict with the interests of real women…

  6. @Ljh

    Not a ridiculous idea but on an era of widespread family breakdown it might be tricky to get three generations into the same house. The country could do with bigger houses if we went down that route too.

  7. MyBurningEars I always thought the family break down was basically optional. It would decrease if it wasn’t subsided by the state.

    i am convinced with out the welfare state the poor would be much better looked after, drunks and druggies included.

    Mutual obligation and negotiation are far more effective than state entitlements.

  8. A new study reveals an “alarming” 50 per cent rise in levels of prenatal depression in a single generation.

    That may say something about that generation?

  9. The study compares pregnant 19-24 year olds in 1990-1992 with the same for 2012-2016. The age distribution for pregnancy has changed dramatically over a generation with the new normal for first pregnancy being early thirties. The comparison is not robust. Are these the thicker poorer females of the cohort?

  10. Ears: my grandmother, my widowed great-grandmother and my widowed great-great-grandmother all lived in the same household, also with my great-grandmother’s sister until she moved out to get married, and next door to my grandmother’s two maiden aunts. By all accounts they had a happy thriving life.

  11. Studies that show large changes over short periods without clear causation are suspect. Is there are agenda here? Is there ever not?

  12. @jgh

    In my family it was quite common for relatives to live next-door (or near-enough) to each other, which helped with cooking, child and elder-caring duties. I do think there’s something in that suggestion. But it is complicated by the wider geographical dispersion of younger generations these days (not at all unusual to travel hundreds of miles away for education or a job, whereas previous generations of my family often spent hundreds of years in the same small village) and more family break-up among the older generation.

  13. ‘Of the first generation, 17 per cent had high depressive symptoms scores, while the among the second generation the proportion had risen to 25 per cent.’

    Cos women recognize the advantage of telling surveyors all sorts of crap. The more they whine, the more they get.

    17 to 25 percent is ‘alarming?’ I’d say it’s surprisingly LOW.

  14. What Rob said, and ljh.
    @ Tim, you’re not being totally fair to the Torygraph’s writers – they do point out one of the main reasons is the anxiety caused by waiting for “like”s on Facebook, from the tone of the comment that is a more important factor contributing to depression than house prices. Which is a staggering comment when you consider the damage that the housing shortage created by New Labour (OK there wasn’t a great surplus in the early 90s but the situation was tolerable in that almost anyone could pick and choose) has done to real living standards [i.e. including the impact of a long commute that isn’t factored into GDP/head, living on the limit of your income to pay the mortgage/rent, stress caused by low savings and the absence of a comfortable cushion provided by savings …]

  15. I know this is not a popular opinion but the solution is simple – Kinder, Küche, Kirche. Women have little to offer outside the home. So they shouldn’t be encouraged to leave it.

    I bet that would clear up a lot of depression.

    Why do we bother educating women beyond, say, 15? So they can read Barbara Cartland and write their own pastiches?

  16. @ SMFS
    No, it is that so that a few (I should probably say “several”) of them can win Nobel Prizes for Chemistry and do other things.
    You talk like a feminist – just inverting a handful of idiocies.

  17. john 77 – “No, it is that so that a few (I should probably say “several”) of them can win Nobel Prizes for Chemistry and do other things.”

    Fewer than 2.5% of Chemistry Nobels have been won by women. Which is below average – over 5% of all Nobels – 49 vs 844 – have gone to women. But most (29) have been in the bullsh!t award categories of Peace or Literature.

    So looking at the sensible ones – Marie Curie won two. In 1903 she shared one in Physics with her husband Pierre Curie and Henri Becquerel. She won one on her own in Chemistry in 1911. Her daughter Irène Joliot-Curie shared one in Physics with her husband Frédéric Joliot-Curie in 1935.

    Gerty Theresa Cori shared one in medicine with her husband Carl Ferdinand Cori and Bernardo Houssay in 1947.

    Maria Goeppert-Mayer shared one in physics with J. Hans D. Jensen and Eugene Wigner in 1963 although for work she did more or less on her own.

    Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin won one for Chemistry in 1964.

    Rosalyn Sussman Yalow shared one in medicine with Roger Guillemin and Andrew Schally in 1977

    Barbara McClintock won one in medicine in 1983.

    Rita Levi-Montalcini shared one in medicine with Stanley Cohen in 1986.

    Gertrude B. Elion shared one in medicine with James W. Black and George H. Hitchings in 1988.

    I could go on but I can’t be ar$ed.

    What this means is that female Nobels are highly likely to be shared – their work is collaborative or just not good enough on its own. Often with their husbands. But more importantly, go down the list of these women. The Curies both had two children each. Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin even had three. One other had two. The rest had none.

    This is a disaster. Given that taking the top ranked female student in Chemistry is about the same level of usefulness as taking the 93th ranked male student, and taking a degree in Chemistry is likely to result in no children, there is no social benefit to educating women in Chemistry. They would be better serving society if they got married and had three children. So why encourage them?

    “You talk like a feminist – just inverting a handful of idiocies.”

    Your insults are pathetic. You should work on that.

  18. @ SMFS
    I don’t work on my insults – it is *really* pathetic that someone cares about the quality of my insults. Anyhow that was intended as a warning. not an insult.
    Coming from a family which includes a number of intelligent females (on average more intelligent than I) who have used their education to do a range of jobs and voluntary work to the benefit of the community, your apparent argument that they should just be used as breeding stock, like the winner of The Oaks, strikes me as ludicrous

  19. I don’t generally believe that anyone (except for criminals and the mentally incompetent) should be ‘forced’ to do anything. If you’re a woman (pace our friend, NiV, perhaps I’d better say “in possession of two X chromosomes and a cervix) and want to pursue a career in chemistry, you go girl! But recognise that the chances of ending up in the top decile in your field are much worse than 1 in 10.

  20. It is amusing to see the achievements of the female Curies passed over with such disdain. Marie did after all win 2 prizes in different subjects, which is probably unique although I must say that I have not checked. And Irène discovered the neutron and positron, although without fully understanding what she and her husband had achieved, and was one of the first people to realise that Fermi had achieved nuclear fission. Not many people were sharper than Fermi.

    So I tend to agree with John77 that ignoring female potential should not be a default position

  21. So I tend to agree with John77 that ignoring female potential should not be a default position

    🙂

    I don’t think many people would regard SMFS’s position as default! Surely his tongue was firmly in his cheek….

  22. john 77 – “I don’t work on my insults – it is *really* pathetic that someone cares about the quality of my insults. Anyhow that was intended as a warning. not an insult.”

    Well thank you for the warning John. I will beware of …. whatever it is.

    “Coming from a family which includes a number of intelligent females (on average more intelligent than I) who have used their education to do a range of jobs and voluntary work to the benefit of the community, your apparent argument that they should just be used as breeding stock, like the winner of The Oaks, strikes me as ludicrous”

    Good for you. Either you are willing to discuss this topic like a grown up. Or you are not. You have made your choice. The fact is that sending girls to do Chemistry is largely a waste of time. There is no reason why society should be doing it. And as study after study points out, it is just making them unhappy.

    Chris Miller – “If you’re a woman (pace our friend, NiV, perhaps I’d better say “in possession of two X chromosomes and a cervix) and want to pursue a career in chemistry, you go girl!”

    By all means. But why should the rest of us pay for what is a Social Bad? Why should the government take my money to pay these girls to make Britain a worse place? If they want to choose to do Chemistry, then fine, they can pay for it. More importantly we can stop lying to them. We can stop telling them that they should disdain marriage and children in favour of Sex and the City. We can stop putting them in schools run by embittered Lesbians who seek to put them off normal life. We can tell them that the road to happiness goes through marriage and children. Which is actually pretty much what the science tells us.

    And then if they choose to be unhappy, it is on them.

    “But recognise that the chances of ending up in the top decile in your field are much worse than 1 in 10.”

    It may be genetics – and I think to some extent it is. But it may also be because enough sensible girls choose marriage and children to skew the statistics. The smartest women are at home with their children leaving the unhappy and childless to compete for Nobel prizes.

    Diogenes – “It is amusing to see the achievements of the female Curies passed over with such disdain. Marie did after all win 2 prizes in different subjects, which is probably unique although I must say that I have not checked.”

    There was no disdain. I pointed out that Marie Curie won two. Although not such dissimilar fields – the sort of physics she did was similar to the sort of “chemistry” she won her second prize for. What is more interesting is that there have only been about half a dozen Nobels awarded to women in genuinely hard science – Physics and Chemistry. Which means the Curie family won half of them. Marie Curie herself won a third of them.

    Scientific talent is not widely gifted to the female gender.

    “So I tend to agree with John77 that ignoring female potential should not be a default position”

    That’s like saying that because of Stephen Hawking everyone with a disability should be given a job at Cambridge.

  23. @ SMFS
    I am willing to discuss the topic like a grown up – when are *you* going to do so?
    Sending *some* girls to read Chemistry may be a waste of money but for others it is money well spent.
    Actually my sisters did maths not chemistry (and almost always came top – the maths teacher found it so amusing when on one occasion I came above #2 sister on a maths test shared between our forms he announced it to my whole class), but the principle is the same for any STEM subject: discrimination on any grounds except aptitude and ability is wrong.
    No it’s like saying that Stephen Hawking shouldn’t be banned from Cambridge.

  24. I think john and SMFS are loudly agreeing, or at least their disagreements would be moot, so long as individuals are required to fund their own education and the pro-[insert gender] propaganda was kept to a dull roar.

    Jordan Peterson’s message (do what you like, but *this* is your best shot at happiness per studies) is often misinterpreted by simpletons as “you will be forced to do this at gunpoint”. Same type of thing going on here I think.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.